4 ms·
Can someone with a better understanding of the medical industry comment about the quality of this device? It seems like a small portable ultrasound device would
by japhyr 9y ago
Can someone with a better understanding of the medical industry comment about the quality of this device? It seems like a small portable ultrasound device would be a great thing for diagnosis. But I understand there are all kinds of issues that might not be obvious to people without a strong medical background.
Is this as good as it seems, or are there features this lacks which prevents it from being that useful in the hospital setting?
- JshWright 9y agoIn a hospital setting this isn't terribly useful. An ultrasound is not that big, and easily moved around on a small cart. Small portable ultrasounds like this are gaining popularity in prehospital care (in ambulances, etc). This isn't really a new concept though. Things like the GE Vscan have been around for years.
- leggomylibro 9y agoCertainly in a well-funded hospital, but might $2K also not look more appealing than $20K-$200K for a small clinic in a one-horse town? Caveat, I have no idea how much a commercial ultrasound machine costs. But it's one machine Michael, what could it cost? Ten thousand dollars?
- kraig 9y agoEven for a well funded hospital this should mean that the procedure now becomes less expensive. Especially important for pets where you can be out of pocket for half the price of one of these.
- carbocation 9y agoEach of the machines at my (large academic) hospital is used for 8-12 transthoracic echocardiograms every weekday, or ~2,500 times per year. An average ultrasound machine cost $140,000 in 2016 (per [1]). If we assume that the machines last 3 years (so far I can tell you that they last at least 5 years, but let's be conservative), then the hospital gets ~7,500 ultrasounds for $140,000, so just under $20 of the cost is attributable to the machine. According to Choosing Wisely[2], the average cost of a TTE is ~$1,000. So, only 2% of the bill seems to be attributable to the price of the ultrasound machine. So, at least at major academic medical centers, the device itself probably won't make a huge change. I could imagine the standard of care changing, however, and that might make a difference. If cheap ultrasounds become ubiquitous and more physicians are trained in their use, the use of ultrasound among generalists might increase, freeing up specialists to take a more narrow focus. I could see this technology being particularly useful in emergency and critical care settings. 1 = http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20141216/blog/312169995 http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20141216/blog/312169... 2 = http://www.choosingwisely.org/patient-resources/echocardiograms-for-heart-valve-disease/ http://www.choosingwisely.org/patient-resources/echocardiogr...
- jacquesm 9y agoThe mark-up in western hospitals notwithstanding I can see a large market for cheaper devices in countries that are not so rich.
- carbocation 9y agoAbsolutely. This price point -- apparently 70x cheaper than the prevailing standard -- could definitely bring the technology to places where $140,000 is prohibitive.
- bsder 9y ago$20K-$40K (about the price for ultrasound machines nowadays) just isn't that expensive for a piece of medical equipment. Your consumables are probably more expensive than that over a year. I suspect this would be more useful for veterinarians--especially in one-horse towns. :)
- russdill 9y agoI'm somewhat skeptical of an EMT's skill level when it comes to ultrasounds.
- JshWright 9y agoWhere it's being used it's a tool for paramedics, not EMTs.
- tyingq 9y agoI believe the expensive part is the array of piezo sensors. Resolution is driven by the number of piezoes. Previous low cost ultrasound sensors skimped on the number in the array, which limited effective resolution. Aside from the piezos themselves, you need enough real time inputs to process them. It seems like this one does better, though details are scant.
- SkyPuncher 9y agoA big thing in the medical industry is proof of efficacy. Hospitals and medicine in general are extremely risk adverse. Health systems will often go to great lengths and cost to demonstrate that the equipment they use minimizes risk. $150k machines come with a high price tag because they also come with a reputation (and even financial guarantees) of accuracy. This minimizes risk to the hospital. This is a new device, from a new manufacturer, based on a new technology. Health systems will be extremely hesitant about adopting this until it has some real world experience. They'll want to make sure that they if their are risks with the device and if the manufacturer looks to be around in the long run. I could see this being somewhat popular when the decision is the alternative is no ultrasound at all. If the health system has a proven system, they'll like look to use that before this device.